Might makes right in Sevenoaks

That curate in Kent is standing by what he said – he’s not backing down just because a lot of boring politically correct rightsy types are pissed off. He’s got principle. He really thinks women should be submissive to men.

Two weeks ago the curate delivered a controversial sermon at St Nicholas’s Church in Sevenoaks in which he triggered outrage by partly blaming the high divorce rate on women no longer submitting to their husbands…During yesterday’s sermon Mr Oden said he wished to make it clear that he did not believe women were “weaker intellectually” but that it was “an eternal principle that women are physically weaker than men”.

Well, it’s not the case that all women are physically weaker than all men, of course, but leave that aside – even if that were the case, what would follow from that? Is there an ‘eternal principle’ that physically stronger people should, morally speaking, be the boss of physically weaker people? Is that what follows from Mark Oden’s inaccurate claim? No. Nobody thinks that. In fact there’s a word for that thought, a pejorative word: that word is ‘bullying.’ There is of course a reality that physically stronger people often do boss people who are physically weaker, but that’s not a moral principle. On the contrary the fact that it’s not a moral principle is something that adults try to teach children, and that decent people try to teach bullies. It is odd that an Anglican curate would want to offer an argument from bullying in a sermon.

Related posts

15 Responses to “Might makes right in Sevenoaks”

And yet every argument that God should be obeyed falls either into circularity or into might makes right. Even if God exists why care what he thinks, after all there’s no reason the morality of whatever God is would translate well to human morality. Either you get into Euthyphro-like circularity or it boils down to “do what God says or he’ll torture you for eternity. What is that other than “might makes right”.

There’s a real core of might makes right at the centre of the Abrahamic religions, the Old Testament has some pretty clear example. It even made some sense in the Bronze Age where there were enough existential threats to your tribe that you had to be as strong as possible.

This curate is merely a symptom of the problems associated with bringing an archaic moral code into a modern society.

The curate had no need to wade into such murky waters and to get in over his head so soon. Comparative strength of the sexes is a bit of a minefield, (as Wes points out), when all the curate needed to do was read his Bible.

Christianity is built on the idea of sin and redemption. The whole edifice requires original sin, which in turn requires the literal Garden of Eden story; if not that then something close to it.

Someone had to commit the first sin, and the Book of Genesis says it was Eve. Adam, perfect up to that point except in the Oscar Wilde dimension (‘I can resist anything except temptation’) found the ‘fruit of the Tree of Knowledge’ offered by Eve worth trading the future peace and happiness of the entire human species for. (Must have been some apple, fig, mango or whatever.)

So naturally, as women have the power to lead good and virtuous men astray, they must be held in check. And the rest is history. QED.

It’s hardly surprising that the curate should say this. It follows from the central message of Christianity that they’re always telling us about: bully the weak, shout down the meek, and if anyone turns the other cheek give it a good slap.

Am I the only one who read the penultimate period as saying the opposite of what was obviously intended? Adults don’t teach children to bully, nor do decent people teach it to bullies, who wouldn’t need it anyhow. Of course, we know and understand that this is not the intended meaning, but it’s still what I see when I read it. Ophelia is usually much more careful in her writing than that.

(“He also asked The Times not [to] interview his wife about the sermon.” Yeah, I bet he did.)